House majority leader to colleagues in 2016: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump - Polidicks

[QUOTE=geel9;52242616]He knew. He fucking knew the entire time.[/QUOTE] holy shit

And nothing will change

Another day, another doozy.

Are there any other sources aside from Washington Post? Because: [img]https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/leftcenter03.png[/img] [quote]These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. [b]These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation[/b].[/quote] [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/11/01/daily-source-bias-check-washington-post/[/url] Not hideously biased, but I've checked several impartial sources (Reuters, Australian ABC News and USA Today) and even left-leaning American ABC News, and none of them have reported on it so far. The article sounds too good to be true, and until it's verified by other organisations, it probably is. If WaPo has a tape, why not let another organisation verify it?

[QUOTE=BF;52242773]Are there any other sources aside from Washington Post? Because: [img]https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/leftcenter03.png[/img] [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/11/01/daily-source-bias-check-washington-post/[/url] Not hideously biased, but I've checked several impartial sources (Reuters, Australian ABC News and USA Today) and even left-leaning American ABC News, and none of them have reported on it so far. The article sounds too good to be true, and until it's verified by other organisations, it probably is. If WaPo has a tape, why not let another organisation verify it?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Factual Reporting: HIGH[/QUOTE] Bias doesn't mean they report factually incorrect information.

Bias is a measure of objectivity, Factuality is a measure of credibility. An organization with some bias but high factuality may include emotional appeals or loaded words, but the key information will be accurate and verified. Thus, a news organization with a slight to moderate bias is acceptable so long as they have an excellent record of factual reporting. Or: Washington Post is a perfectly acceptable source.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;52242126]So Republican leadership knew Trump might be compromised and gambled on him anyway for political gain? :goodjob:[/QUOTE] At this point I'm convinced Paul Ryan and friends would put up with literally anything including genocide if it meant that they got to take healthcare away from poor people.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52242807]Can we just have mediabiasfactcheck shit with the mods in private? Every single thread we see people questioning legit orgs like WaPo. Go annoy the mods, not us[/QUOTE] You don't even need to see the mods because the rules say "anything past left center or right center is garbage" Legit don't know why people don't read the rules

[QUOTE=BF;52242773]Are there any other sources aside from Washington Post? Because: [img]https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/leftcenter03.png[/img] [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/11/01/daily-source-bias-check-washington-post/[/url] Not hideously biased, but I've checked several impartial sources (Reuters, Australian ABC News and USA Today) and even left-leaning American ABC News, and none of them have reported on it so far. The article sounds too good to be true, and until it's verified by other organisations, it probably is. If WaPo has a tape, why not let another organisation verify it?[/QUOTE] This fits under the guidelines; Center-Left, Center, and Center-Right are all ok as long as Factual Reporting is also High.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52242807]Can we just have mediabiasfactcheck shit with the mods in private? Every single thread we see people questioning legit orgs like WaPo. Go annoy the mods, not us[/QUOTE] I think it's a good thing. People need to learn media literacy. Open discussion about what qualifies a source as being reliable or unrealiable educates people on how to spot potential misinformation, propaganda, or unethical reporting. Point in fact: that article from Fox News yesterday about the murdered DNC staffer. It was concluded that it wasn't reliable information due to the lack of any credible sources reporting on it, and was eventually proven a complete hoax.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52242832]I think it's a good thing. People need to learn media literacy. Open discussion about what qualifies a source as being reliable or unrealiable educates people on how to spot potential misinformation, propaganda, or unethical reporting. Point in fact: that article from Fox News yesterday about the murdered DNC staffer. It was concluded that it wasn't reliable information due to the lack of any credible sources reporting on it, and was eventually proven a complete hoax.[/QUOTE] Exactly what I was thinking: it's good to have these discussions about source legitimacy, and importantly the differences between bias and credibility, in the public space. That way, people who aren't actively posting threads can still learn from the discussion.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52242841]Exactly what I was thinking: it's good to have these discussions about source legitimacy, and importantly the differences between bias and credibility, in the public space. That way, people who aren't actively posting threads can still learn from the discussion.[/QUOTE] Same logic applies to people who post uncommon misconceptions that minorly shit up the thread. Notice my wording there. "Uncommon" and "Minorly". There are people who should be trashcanned who unironically bring up meme level garbage with intent to throw off discussion, then there are just people who have different views.

I could of put time or effort into this O.C., but Ryan deserves neither. [img]http://i.imgur.com/5qZRn9o.png[/img]

Paying attention to Rohrabacher and his asinine comments on world events the last few years, I have reason to believe McCarthy...

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52242392]Thinking more about it, why does this tape exist? Who was recording it? Where did it come from?[/QUOTE] I think "tape" shouldn't be taken too literally. These days any phone has a voice recorder, and if it doesn't have one built in there's most certainly an app for it. Hit record, and put the phone in your pocket. Espionage a-go.

[QUOTE=TraderRager;52243279]I could of put time or effort into this O.C., but Ryan deserves neither. [img]http://i.imgur.com/5qZRn9o.png[/img][/QUOTE] Very nice, but a screenshot of the No Russian elevator from COD MW2 would have worked just as well. "And remember, no leaks."

Best implicated treason defense 2017; 'It was just a prank, bro!'

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52242030] House Majority Leader Kevin [B]McCarthy[/B] [/QUOTE] I know there's no relation, but does anyone else find that name highly ironic given the circumstances? You know, as a person actively aware of Russian subversion of members of the US Government. I Hope more becomes of this information.

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;52244737]Best implicated treason defense 2017; 'It was just a prank, bro!'[/QUOTE] It was just Locker Room Treason, guys! :downs: :hammered:

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52245106]It was just Locker Room Treason, guys! :downs: :hammered:[/QUOTE] Trump was just "saying it how it is" to the Russians he's honest and thats what people like about him